





' -^^ ^ *•''•• ^4^ °<^ *•■» jP ^ •'■• <v 






.-» v:> 



AT * Qi0i « '<\n <^^ ♦•^ 






















^-^^•^^ 










45? 

.Dm 



REMARKS 



HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 6, IKOl. 



OS THE rksoi.i;tio>j of mr. dixhn to print the 

INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN 




Mr. DOUGLAS said: 

Mr. President : I cannot assent to the construction wliich the Sen- 
ator from North Carolina [Mr. Clingman] has pLaced upon the Presi- 
dent's inauguraL I have read it carefully, with a view of ascertaining 
distinctly what the policy of the Administration is to be. The inau- 
gural is characterized by ability, and by directness on certain points ; 
but with such reservations and qualifications as require a critical anal- 
ysis to arrive at its true construction on other points. I have made 
such an analysis, and come to the conclusion that it is a peace offering 
rather than a war message. Having examined it critically, I think I 
can demonstrate tliat there is no foundation for the apprehension which 
has been spread through the country that this message is equivalent to 
a declaration of war ; that it commits the President of the United 
States to recapture the forts in tlie seceded States, and to hold them at 
all hazards, to collect the revenue under all circumstances, and to 
execute the laws in all the States, no matter what may be the circum- 
stances that surround him. I do not understand that to be the char- 
acter of the message. On the contrary, I understajpd it to contain a 
distinct pledge that the policy of the Administration sliall be conducted 
with exclusive reference to a peaceful solution of our national difficul- 
ties. True^ the President indicates a certain line of j)olicy whicli he 
intends to pursue, so far as it may be consistent with the peace of the 
country, but he assures us that this policy will be modified and changed 
whenever necessary to a peaceful solution of these difficulties. 

The address is not as explicit as I could desire on certain points; on 
certain other points it is explicit. The message is explicit and certain 
upon the point that the President will not, directly or indirectly, in- 
terfere with the institution of slavery witliin the States — is specific 
upon the point that he will do everything in his power to give a faithful 
execution to the Constitution and the laws for the return of fugitive 
slaves — is explicit upon the point that he will not oppose such amend- 



2 ■r\']->'^ 

ments to the Constitutiou as may be deemed necessary to settle the 
slaverj'' question and restore peace to the country. Then, it proceeds 
to indicate a line of policy for his Administration. He declares that, 
in view of the Constitution and laws, the Union remains unbroken. 
I do not suppose any man can deny the proposition, that in contem- 
plation of law, the Union remains intact, no matter what the fact 
may be. There may be a sei)aration de facto, temporary or permanent, 
as the sequel may prove; but, in conterai)lation of the Constitution 
and the laws, the Union does remain unbroken. I think no one can 
deny the correctness of the proposition, as a constitutional principle. 
Let us go further and see what there is in the address that is supposed 
to pledge the President to a coercive policy. He says: "I shall take 
care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the 
laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States." This 
declaration is relied upon as conclusive evidence that coercion is to be 
used in the seceding States; but take the next sentence: ''Doing this 
I deem to be only a simple duty on my part. I shall perform it, so 
far as is practicable, unless" — unless what? Let us see what the con- 
dition is on the happening of which he will not enforce the laws — - 
"unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the 
requisite means, or in some other authoritative manner direct the con- 
trary." 

This condition, on which he will not enforce the laws in the seceding 
States, is not as explicit as T could desire. When he alludes to his 
"riglitful masters, the American people," I suppose he means the 
action of Congress in withholding the requisite means. Query : Does 
he wish to be understood as saying that the existing laws confer upon 
him "the requisite means?" or, does he mean to say that inasmuch 
as the existing laws do not confer the requisite means, he cannot exe- 
cute the laws in the seceding States unless those means shall be conferred 
by Congress ? The language employed would seem to imply that the 
President was referring to the future action of Congress as necessary 
to give him the requisite means to enforce obedience to the laws in 
the seceding States. Doubtless the President was not uninformed of 
the fact that his friends in the House of Representatives had prepared 
a force bill, conferring these requisite means to coerce obedience in the 
seceding States, and that that bill was defeated in the House. He 
must be aware, historically, that in 1832, General Jackson deemed ad- 
ditional legislation necessary to enforce the revenue laws at Charleston, 
and that a force bill was then passed, which expired by its own lim- 
itation in a short time, I think two years, and is not now in force. 
Docs Mr. Lincoln consider that he has any more power to coerce the 
collection of the revenue in Charleston harbor Avithout further legisla- 
tion than (xeneral Jackson had in 1832? When he pledges himself 
to collect tiie revenue and to enforce the laws in those States, unless 
Congress withholds the requisite means to enable him to do so, is he 
not to be understood that whetlior he does enforce them or not depends 
upon the future action of Congress? I think that is the proper con- 
struction of his language. 

In a subsequent paragraph he says: " The power confided to me will 
be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging 



to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts." What 
power? Does he mean that wliicli has heen confided, or that which 
may be confided? Does he mean tliat he will exercise the ])ower unless 
Congress directs the contrary, or that he will exercise it when Con- 
gress confers it? I regret that tliis clause is understood by some per- 
sons as meaning that the President will use the whole military force of 
the country to recapture the forts, and other places, which have been 
seized without the assent of Congress. If such was his meaning, he 
was unfortunate in the selection of words to expiess the idea. He does 
not say that he will recapture or retake, hold and occupy the forts and 
other places. Nor does he say that he will rocon)mend to Congress to 
furnish him men and money for such a purpose; but "the power con- 
fided to me will be used to hold, occhpy, and possess tlie property and 
places belonging to the Government." To say the least of it, this is 
equivocal language. I am not going to condemn him for it; my 
present object is not to censure, but to ascertain the true meaning of 
the inaugural, in order to learn whether the Administration is com- 
mitted to an aggressive policy, which must inevitabl}' involve us in 
civil war, or to a peaceful solution of our national troubles. He says 
further, " but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there 
will be no invasion, no using offeree against or among the people any- 
where." He will use the power confided to him to hold, occupy, and 
possess the ibrts and other property, and to collect the revenue ; but 
beyond these objects he will not use that power. I am unable to under- 
stand the propriety of the distinction between enforcing the revenue 
laws and all other laws. If it is his duty to enforce the revenue laws, 
why is it not his duty to enforce the other laws of the land? What 
right has he to say that he will enforce those laws that enable him to 
raise revenue, to levy and collect taxes from the people, and that he 
will not enforce the laws which protect the rights of persons and prop- 
erty to the extent that the Constitution confers the power in those 
States? I reject the distinction; it cannot be justified in law or in 
morals If taxes are to be collected, and the revenue laws are to be 
enforced, the la,ws that afford protection, as a compensation for the 
taxes, must also be enforced. 

The next paragraph is also objectionable. I will read it: 

"Whore hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and uni- 
versal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federnl offices, there will be 
no atti.'mpt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the str.'Ct 
legal right may exist in the government to enforce tne exercise of these offices, the attempt 
to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, T deem it better to 
forego, for the time, the uses of such offices." 

I rejoice to know that he will not attempt to force obnoxious strangers 
to hold office in the interior places where public sentiment is hostile; 
but why draw the distinction between "interior localities'" and exte- 
rior places? Why the distinction between the States in the interior 
and those upon the sea-board? If he has the power in the one case, he 
has it in the other ; if it be his duty in the one case, it is his duty in 
the other. There is no provision of the Constitution or the laws 
which authorizes a distinction between the places upon the sea-board 
and the places in the interior. 

This brings me to the consideration of another clause in the message 



which I deem the most important of all, and the key to his entire 
policy. I rejoiced when I read this declaration, and I wish to invite 
the attention of the Senate to it especially, as showing conclusively 
that Mr. Lincoln stands pledged to that policy which will lead to a 
peaceful solution, and against every policy that leads to the contrary. 
I Avill read the paragraph : 

" The course lierc indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show 
a modification or chanire to be prosier, and in every case and exigency my best discretion 
will be exercised according to the circumstances actually existing, and with a view and hope 
of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoraticoi of fraternal sympathies 
and alfections." 

After indicating the line of policy which he would pursue, if con- 
sistent witli the peace of the country, he tells us emphatically that 
that course will be followed unless modifications and changes should 
be necessary to a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and if in 
any case or exigency a change of policy should be necessary, it will be 
made " with a view and hope of a peaceful solution." In other words, 
if the collection of the revenue leads to a peaceful solution, it is to be 
collected ; if the abandonment of that policy is necessary to a peaceful 
solution, the revenue is not to be collected ; if the recapture of Fort 
Moultrie would tend to a peaceful solution, he stands pledged to re- 
capture it; if the recapture would tend to violence and war, he is 
pledged not to recapture it ; if the enforcement of the laws in the se- 
ceding States would tend to facilitate a peaceful solution, he is pledged 
to their enforcement; if the omission to enforce those laws would best 
facilitate peace, he is pledged to omit to enforce them ; if maintaining 
possession of Fort Sumter would facilitate peace, he stands pledged to 
retain its possession ; if. on the contrary, the abandonment of Fort 
Sumter and the withdrawal of the troops would faoilitate a peaceful 
solution, he is pledged to abandon the fort and withch-aw the troops. 

Sir, this is the only construction that I can put upon this clause. If 
this be not the true interpretation, for what purpose was it insertedPjie 
The line of policy that he had indicated was stated vaguelj'; but therejPr 
is not a pledge to use coercion ; there is not a pledge to retain a fort ; ;|i( 
there is not a pledge to recapture an arsenal ; there is not a pledge tonul 
collect revenue; there is not a pledge to enforce the laws unless there] on 
is attached to each the condition ; and the condition is, that he willjion 
do it only when that course tends to a peaceful solution of the national! ie 
troubles, and that lie will not do it in any case where it does noilieu 
tend to a peacel'iil solution. jie, 

I submit, then, to the Senate whether tlie friends of peace have nollJuJi 
much to rejoice at in the inaugural address of the President. It is 
much more conservative document than I had anticipated. It is 
much more i)acific and conciliatory paper than I had expected. j|ii 
would not venture the expression of an opinion upon it on hearing i 
delivered, until I had carefully examined and analyzed it. Aftej 
examination, I am clearly of the opinion that the Administratioi 
stands pledged 1)y the inaugural to a peaceful solution of all our diffih 
culties, to do no act that leads to war, and to change its policy just s 
often and whenever a change is necessary to preserve the peace. 

So much, sir, for the policy of the Administration. Now a fe^ 



iQWe, 



'Hi 



words ii})on the President's views of the causes of the present difficul- 
ties and the remedies for those difficulties. In a manner peculiar to 
himself and to his usual course of argument, he proceeds to show, first, 
what did not produce the trouble. Let us see what did not do it : 

" All profoss to be coritont in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is 
it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think 
not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of 
doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly-written provision of 
the Constitution lias ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should 
deprive a minority of any clearly-written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of 
view, justify revolution; certainly would, if such right were a vital one. Hut such is not 
our case." 

Here we are told that these difficulties have not grown out of the 
violation of any express provision of the Constitution ; tliey have not 
arisen from the denial of any right guarantied Ly an express provi- 
sion. He then proceeds to show wliat is the cause of tlie trouble. 
Here it is : 

" But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every 

Question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any 
ocument of reasonable length contain express ))rovisions for all possible questions. Shall 
fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State autliority? The Constitution 
does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories ? The Constitu- 
tion does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in tlie Territories? The Con- 
stitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional 
controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities." 

''From questions of this class spring" all our troubles. What 

lass? The attempt of Congress to exercise power on the slavery 

question where there is no "express" provision of the Constitution 

conferring the power; the attempt on the one side to prohibit slavery, 

ind the attempt on the other side to protect it, where there is no 

'express" provision authorizing either — these are the causes of our 

)resent troubles, according to the statement of the President. The 

'-auses are to be traced to the absence of any constitutional provision 

llefining the extent of the power of Congress over this subject. If the 

president has stated the causes of our difficulties fairly and truly ; if 

hey all arise from the absence of a constitutional provision on the 

ubject of slavery in the Territories, what is the remedy? The remedy 

oust be to adopt an amendment that will make an express constitu- 

ional provision on the subject. The absence of such a provision being 

he cause, the -supplying of such a provision must be the remedy. 

lence the President has demonstrated with great clearness and force 

lie absolute necessity of such amendments to the Constitution of the 

Inited States as will define and settle the question whether or not 

ai'ongress has the ])ower to prohibit slavery ; whether or not it has the 

apwer to protect slavery ; whether or not it has the power to legislate 

In the subject at all. He gives us to understand that there will never 

ite peace until that question is settled ; it cannot be settled except by 

temiendments to the Constitution ; and hence he proceeds to tell us how 

lomch amendments can be obfained. He tells us that these amendments 

m the Constitution may be obtained in either of the modes prescribed 

8c|i the instrument: the one is where Congress takes the initiative, as 

e did the other day, and submits the proposed amendments to the 



W60 



i ♦ «/ ^^ oX ^. 
















